"I think Superman should go on the Larry King show and announce that he would come back to life if people in all 50 states wanted him to." - Dave Barry

***

Part 2 of an exchange on the Humanism Meetup Mailing List on Science Education (Part 1):


Me: I had no idea what was paleontology, quantum mechanics, astronomy and such.

-> Err. As it is most students find it difficult to learn what they already have.

There seem to be 2 issues here:

1) Trying to run before you can walk
How do you want people to learn Quantum Mechanics before Newtonian Mechanics? Even in JC Physics, they only touched briefly upon Quantum Mechanics

2) Depth
Time is limited. If you want schools to do more than briefly skim through those topics (if at all), something has got to give: either you remove other stuff from the syllabus, or you spend twice as long in school, or some such.


[Besides getting you interested,] another aim of Combined Science is to give you exposure to broad areas of Science and its main disciplines: Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

[I specialised in] physics and chemisty.. and both are not my interest. There were rumors that Biology was extremely difficult to pass and that scared me. If there was paleontology or evolutionary biology I would've chosen it.

-> Even though there's a move to more variety in offerings, do you think it's practical for secondary schools to offer courses in paleontology or evolutionary biology?

Besides, if you don't already know basic biology, how will you do paleontology or evolutionary biology?

the topics for debates i had were chosen by teachers and were mainly on world affairs -.- of course i didn't participate

-> Well, school is about having a broad based education, not about having a science education.

Furthermore, at the secondary school level I'd imagine debating is more to develop argumentative and speaking skills than content knowledge.

Suppose there was a debate topic on evolution. What if half the class (conservatively) was not interested/did not participate?


-> Any proposals [for encouraging students to learn]?

Teaching in neighborhood schools is often an exercise in zookeeping, since most of the kids don't want to learn. Someone who taught in both neighborhood and more "branded" schools said this was the difference between them - in the latter the students actually *want* to study.

[Malay is] a waste of valuable students time

-> You do realise that our two nearest neighbors use Malay right? Besides which, teaching Malay is not meant to displace English and Mandarin teaching.

Though seeing what a mess we make of teaching only 2 languages, I can only imagine what will happen when we teach 3.

Many teachers treat students as empty vassals that need to be filled up, instead of a pile of wood that needs fire to be ignited and burning with passion.

-> if you have a clump of wet soil it is better to throw dry wood on top of it ("filling it up") than trying in vain to light it.


C: Gabriel, I think u missed my point. I've been repeating this alot of times liao. the main purpose of me saying all these is to say that the school has not helped in in getting interested in the sciences, in fact it bored me out and took away that interest in science my mum instilled into me when i was young. I'm so glad to have it back now.

Many students i know have no dreams, no ambitions. They just want to finish their study path, get into a decent paying job regardless of whether they like it or not. Even students at my poly are like this. Why so? because the previous schools they attended did not cultivate their interest in any subject. Do you disagree with this sentence?

Education is about cultivating interest.

Another aim is [of combined science] to give you exposure to broad areas of Science

Exposure of something to a person whose not interested is as good as non-exposure.


[It's] probably not [practical for secondary schools to offer courses in paleontology or evolutionary biology], but i know secondary school students do possess the ability to understand polytechnic courses' syllabuses. We can at least provide a number of subjects equal to what polytechnics are offering.

if you don't already know basic biology, how will you do paleontology or evolutionary biology?

I think what I am suggesting is a restructure of secondary sch education to make it polytechnic-like. Year 1, basic biology, Year 2 specialize etc etc.


[For debates, students] will [be interested] if the school is able to impress upon them the magnificence and elegance of natural selection, which is also part of cultivating interest.

But you need to know something before you can debate it.

Interested students will be able to source information by their own.

Any proposals [for encouraging learning instead of spoonfeeding]?

Not that i can think of.

Teaching in neighborhood schools is often an exercise in zookeeping, since most of the kids don't want to learn.

I was from an autonomous school, and have friends from the top classes (i was in one in sec1) and their *want* to study isn't because they are interested. its because of the expectations of parents, because they can think long term and realize going to JC and uni will get them a better paying job.

teaching Malay is not meant to displace English and Mandarin teaching. Though seeing what a mess we make of teaching only 2 languages, I can only imagine what will happen when we teach 3.

yup, thats wad im saying. wasting time and effort. and to me, i think china and the english speaking countries are larger gold mines than our neighbours.


Me: the school has not helped in in getting interested in the sciences

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

I do not think that testing people on something is a good way to cultivate their interest in it.

Many students i know have no dreams, no ambitions. They just want to finish their study path, get into a decent paying job regardless of whether they like it or not. Even students at my poly are like this. Why so? because the previous schools they attended did not cultivate their interest in any subject. Do you disagree with this sentence?

Actually, yes.

How will cultivating students' interests in an academic subject give them dreams or ambition?

Granted, some people's dreams or ambitions are to make discoveries in (a) certain field(s), but the vast majority of people do not share them.

Unless you're referring to people reflecting upon their lives and what they really want - in which case cultivating their interest in (a) subject(s) is not the best thing to do.

Education is about cultivating interest.

That's one purpose of education, but not the only or even the most important one.

Other important purposes of education (most of which I see as more important than cultivating interest in an academic subject):

- Equipping students with the skills to survive in the real world (most importantly, getting a job, but also others including inter-personal skills)
- Giving students an appreciation of the state of humanity's knowledge (not necessarily the same as cultivating interest)
- Developing critical thinking skills
- Endowing students with a body of knowledge, some of which is necessary/useful to know
- Providing students with a base of knowledge and skills they can build upon to pursue their interests and imperatives
- Serving as a signalling device for prospective employers

Exposure of something to a person whose not interested is as good as non-exposure.

Not true. It plants the seeds which may later germinate (Christian evangelism does this as well)

I think what I am suggesting is a restructure of secondary sch education to make it polytechnic-like. Year 1, basic biology, Year 2 specialize etc etc./

I don't think your suggestions are possible administratively

Polytechnics and universities can offer broad course offerings because of scale - even a small institution of 5,000 students can offer 100 courses with 50 people each. In contrast a secondary school has, what, 1,500 students?

And polytechnics and universities have relatively little contact time because students do more independent and self-study.

Having enrichment activities is a more feasible way of encouraging interest.

Interested students will be able to source information by their own.

Good luck with that. Even at university level this is not possible.

There's a strong sentiment of anti-intellectualism in Singapore - even among the university-educated.


D: I used to give tuition for primary/secondary school students as many of my peers did, and when we talked about our students the same things cropped up again and again: they're only interested in passing exams. When I look back to my own Sec/JC days, it was also the same. It's all rote learning, regurgitating what you read during examinations and "returning it to the teacher" after exams.

I still think a broad-based education is necessary - mostly from the practical point of view. A public education system needs to cater for most of the school-going population. People, including school kids, have a wide range of interests, as we all know. Evolutionary processes may be your cup of tea, but it may put another student to sleep. Likewise, if you try to explain computer algorithms to me. Some students may not even be interested in school subjects at all, but able to expound at length re soccer, music or photography. Where does one draw the line? Should the young be allowed the freedom (and responsibility) to demarcate their own learning beyond the basic reading and math skills?

Nonetheless, recalling those combined science texts, well let's just say those can be improved. I don't know how, but there must be a way to strike a balance between trying to make things interesting and not too dumbed down and yet keep it accessible for the slower students. The weakest link is probably the teachers - quality varies between extremes, and if anyone reads the recent editorial by Janadas Devan in ST, being an inspiring teacher is never easy.

The examination system and the paper chase mentality also have to be discarded, surely. They're not compatible with learning for learning's sake. At present, the only common denominator among students, parents and teachers is the dreaded E word. How do you expect teachers to spare the time to make lessons exciting while they're under pressure to finish the syllabi and assessments? How do you expect students to appreciate the finer points of the material they're learning if their mind is constantly on what's coming up for exams?

Should schools be blamed for students' lack of dream or ambition? I guess it boils down to how much capacity schools have to actually engineer any change in the system.

Re. debating skills, I'd argue that it's not solely based on knowledge of the subjects involved. I've known very knowledgeable people who will make poor debators and some very persuasive speakers/debators who don't really know what they're talking about.


C: So the problem is that students aren't interested in their studies, and probably the school is not to blame, but i can't seem to find the root of the problem. To me, it seems like its school because once I sort of change my study attitude to half-assed and spent more time on the internet, i got interested in game design and subsequently religion when i got a girlfriend as she was into Christianity, then evolution.

You're right that paper chase mentality has to be discarded, it will be a huge step forward for our education level in Singapore.


A: I agree with Gabriel that these are some of the most important functions of education.

The question is, does the current system achieve this, and if not why?

School teaches us to shut up, listen, do as you are told, speak up only when asked to.
Granted there are jobs that require this particular skill, but I think the kind of jobs that most of us strive for requires us to do the exact opposite.

School teaches us that for every question, there is a correct answer, a standard answer, and the answer sheet is at the back of the book or in the hands of the teacher.
In life, you have to know what is the most useful question to ask, know that there are no answers and no one knows the answers but everyone pretends to, and you need to know how to go about finding the answers you want.

School teaches us --- verbally --- that we should be creative, and then proceeds to tell us exactly how they want us to be creative.

I could go on forever, but I think people get my meaning.